A Compendium of Clinical Research and Practice


Subscribe Current Issue Archives Continuing Education Submit an Article Contact Us
Search Articles:
Wounds Home
Current Issue
Archives
Search Articles
Subscribe to Wounds
Industry News
New Products
Classifieds
Continuing Education
Supplements
Enewsletters
Editorial Board
Contact Us
Author Instructions
Rapid Review
About Us

Bioengineered skin equivalent
Negative pressure wound therapy
Acellular dermal matrix
Diabetic neuropathy
Silver dressings
Enzymatic debridement

Autolytic debridement
Wound necrosis
Surgical debridement
Mechanical debridement
Wound fibroblasts
Delayed wound healing
Impaired wound healing
Compression stockings
Diabetic foot wounds
Pressure dressing
Risk Factors for Pressure Ulcers in Hospitalized Elderly without Significant Cognitive Impairment

Purpose. To evaluate risk factors for pressure ulcers (PU) in hospitalized elderly without significant cognitive impairment. Methods. From July 2005 to February 2006, 40 hospitalized elderly patients without cognitive deficit were evaluated in a university hospital in Pouso Alegre, Brazil. Twenty patients with a PU formed the study group and 20 without a PU formed the control group. The Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) was used to assess cognitive status. Pressure ulcers were classified using the National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel (NPUAP) guidelines, followed by evaluation of risk factors for PU using the Braden scale. The chi-squared test was applied and for the Braden scale the Mann-Whitney test was used. Results. In the study group, 14 (70%) of the subjects were women and 6 (30%) were men. The average age was 71.5 years. The average score for the MMSE was 19.7. The average time of hospitalization was 23.1 days for the study group and 13 days for the control. In the Braden scale, the risk factors such as humidity, activity, mobility, friction, and shear force were significant (P < 0.05). Conclusion. The data from the present study demonstrate that hospitalized elderly patients have an increased risk for the development of PU. Humidity, activity, mobility, friction, and shear are important risk factors during the hospitalization period.


       Pressure ulcers (PU) are defined as skin breakdown and continuum of tissue damage of ischemic etiology secondary to high external pressure, which usually occurs over bony prominences.1 Seventeen percent of hospitalized patients have or will end up having a PU. In the worldwide geriatric population, 71% of patients ≥ 70 years have PU.2 According to Brazilian estimations, 14% of the population will be 60 years old or more by 2025.3 In Brazil, national policy considers elderly citizens to be 60 years old or older.4
       Pressure ulcers are caused by intrinsic and extrinsic factors. The intrinsic factors include immobilization, cognitive deficit, chronic illness (eg, diabetes mellitus), poor nutrition, use of steroids, and aging.5,6 There are 4 extrinsic factors that can cause these wounds—pressure, friction, humidity, and shear force. Pressure is a crucial factor in PU development. Pressure of 70 mmHg over a bony prominence for 2 hours or more is enough to cause an ischemic wound.1 These factors might predispose a patient to PU development.
       Several scales are used to analyze PU risk factors. One of these is the Braden Scale, which is based on PU physiology. The Braden Scale considers intensity and duration of pressure and tissue tolerance as critical determinants for PU development.7
       Research shows that PU treatment is costly. A study conducted in the United States by the Agency for Healthcare Policy and Research found that PU treatment costs were more than $1.35 billion annually.8
       The present study was formulated with the understanding of the prevalence of PUs in a growing geriatric population and its significant implication to the health care system. This study attempts to evaluate the risk factors for PUs in hospitalized elderly patients without significant cognitive impairment.

Methods

       The present study was performed at a university hospital, Hospital das Clínicas Samuel Libânio (CHSL), in Pouso Alegre, Brazil.
       The institution’s Ethics Committee approved the study protocol. It is a transverse, analytic, and controlled study.
       Twenty elderly patients with a PU, age 60 years and older with no cognitive impairment were evaluated from July 2005 to February 2006. Twenty other hospitalized patients without PUs were assessed as a control group. All enrolled patients signed a consent form. Whenever patients had visual impairment or another disability that made writing difficult, their legal representatives signed the consent form. The patients were hospitalized for at least 24 hours and had 1 or more PU of various stages.
       One researcher interviewed all patients. Clinical and demographic data were obtained. The MMSE9 was administered and a skin evaluation was performed. Pressure ulcers were documented and classified during the interview. Risk factors were assessed with the Braden Scale.7
       The MMSE9 was used to exclude patients with significant cognitive impairment. The MMSE normal score was adjusted for the patients’ educational level as follows: no school = 13 points; 1 to 7 years of school ≥ 18 points; 8 or more years of school ≥ 26 points. The point total was 30.
       Patients who did not reach the minimum score according to their level of education were excluded from the study.
       Pressure ulcers were classified as Stage I–IV according to the National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel.10 Elderly patients with all stages of PUs were included in the study. Stage I is consistent with no blanched erythematic spot. Stage II is when partial skin thickness is lost involving the derma, and the epidermis is lost. Stage III is when all skin thickness is lost, compromising the adjacent muscular fascia. Stage IV is an extensive destruction of the skin with total loss of skin thickness, with important regional necrosis or with damage to tendons, articulations, and other structures.
       The Braden Scale was used to assess PU risk factors. This scale is based on 6 subscales: sensorial perception, humidity, mobility, nutrition, friction, and shear force. Each subscale ranges from 1 to 4 points except for shear force and friction, which range from 1 to 3 points. Total scores vary from 6 to 23. The higher scores indicate low risk for developing PU.7 Patients with 18 points or less were considered at a higher risk for developing a PU.11 This scale has been validated for use in Brazil.7
       The chi-squared test12 was used for data analysis in order to compare school grade and gender distribution between the study and the control groups. The Mann-Whitney test12 was used on each of the subscales in order to compare the study and control groups according to the Braden Scale scores. A P value < 0.05 (or 5%) was considered significant.

Results

       Twenty patients with a PU and the other 20 patients without a PU were analyzed, from July 2005 through February 2006.
       Fourteen (70%) patients with a PU were women and 6 (30%) were men. The mean age was 71.5 (± 8.0) years. School grades varied from patients who never went to school (8, 40%), to patients with 1 to 4 years of school (12, 60%). The average score for the MMSE was 19.75 (± 3.2%).
       In the control group, 10 (50%) patients were women and 10 (50%) were men. The average age was 70.3 (± 7.9) years. School grades also varied: 3 patients (15%) never went to school, 14 (70%) studied for 1 to 4 years, and the other 3 patients (15%) studied for more than 4 years. The average MMSE score was 22.8 (± 3.7).
       The most frequent pre-existing diseases in the study group were hypertension, diabetes mellitus, dyslipidemia, and heart failure. The major causes of hospitalization in the study group were—hip fracture (5), heart failure (3), pneumonia (2), multiple traumas (2), pulmonary obstructive disease (2), hip arthroplasty (1), and other (5). Hypertension, diabetes mellitus, coronary disease, arrhythmias, and obstructive pulmonary disease were the major pre-existing diseases in the control group. The major causes of hospitalization in the control group were—pneumonia (3), cerebral vascular accident (3), hypertension (2), acute pyelonephritis (2), obstructive pulmonary disease (1), spinal cord compression (1), anemia (1), and other (5). The average number of medications was 4.8/patient/day in the study group versus 3.8 /patient/day in the control group.
       The mean period of hospitalization for the study group was 23.2 (± 18.8) and 13 (± 10.4) days for the control group.
       Twenty-six ulcers were observed among the 20 patients with a PU. Pressure ulcer classification and locations are shown in Table 1.
Table 1-2

       According to the Braden Scale, the average score was 15 (± 2.7) in the study group, and 20.15 (± 2.5) in the control group. Based on the Braden Scale, 18 (90%) patients scored 18 points after the addition of subscales. Three patients from the control group scored 18 points or less, thus, had a higher risk for developing a PU.
       Table 2 shows the Braden Scale scores comparing the control group and the study group.

Discussion

       Pressure ulcers are among the most common complications of older hospitalized patients. In general hospitals in Brazil a prevalence of 8% to 10% is observed.13 Patients with risk factors for developing PU must be identified in order to allow the adoption of specific preventive measures.14,15 It is important to establish a preventive protocol that includes PU risk factor assessment, optimization of human and material resources, as well as reduction of the hospitalization costs.
       Although there is no reference in the literature regarding a relationship between PUs and gender, the authors observed a greater occurrence of PUs in women.16 More cases of PUs were found among women than men, but gender is not thought to be a risk factor.16 In 2004, Blanes et al5 analyzed the relationship between age, gender, and PU risk factors. In a group of hospitalized patients with PUs, they found a mean age of 64 years—women were 67.9 years old and were slightly older than the men (60.4 years).
       In the present study, the mean age among the elderly with a PU was 71.55 years. This is compatible with the literature, indicating a greater prevalence of chronic wounds in patients over 60 years old17 and that 71% of PU occurs in patients over age 70.2
       A study conducted in a Finnish hospital found 164 patients with a PU—83% of the patients were age 65 or older.18
       Older people are more susceptible to developing skin wounds because of age related skin changes.19 The dermal layer becomes thinner, epidermis vascularization, proliferation and thickness decreases. The skin’s properties, such as pain, sensibility, inflammatory answer, and barrier also decrease, making it more vulnerable to injury.19
       Those who are more susceptible to PU development include older bed-ridden patients and those with cognitive impairment.20 The major risk factor for developing geriatric syndromes among hospitalized patients (eg, a PU), is cognitive impairment.21 In the present study, the cognition aspect was not characterized as a risk factor—the older patients with no significant cognitive impairment according to the MMSE score and therefore the cognition aspect was not characterized as a risk factor.
       Chronic illness, such as diabetes mellitus, immobilization, and age are intrinsic risk factors for PU.22 Hypertension, cerebral vascular accident, diabetes mellitus, heart failure, and obstructive pulmonary disease were the most frequently seen pre-existing diseases in both control and study groups. The daily use of medications is described as a contributing factor for PU occurrence.7 Anti-hypertensive agents can affect blood flow and decrease tissue perfusion, making tissues more susceptible to pressure.6–9
       Pressure ulcers extend the hospitalization period by making patients recovery more difficult and increasing the risk for complications. It is estimated that 60,000 patients die each year due to PU-related complications, such as sepsis and osteomyelitis.23 In a study by Blanes et al5 at a university hospital with 755 beds, all patients with PUs were hospitalized for an average of 33 days (hospital stays varied from 1 to 198 days). In the present study, the mean period of hospitalization was higher in the study group compared to the control group and had no statistical significance (P = 0.7868) but related to the presence of a pressure ulcer.
       According to the literature, the Stage II PU is the most common and the predominant ulcer sites are the sacral, heel, and ischial regions.5,18 In relation to ulcer stage, Stage I (26.9%) and Stage II (50%) were the most common in the present study.
       According to Braden Scale results, the study group scored significantly lower than the control group. When the average scores and the median were compared (per the Braden Scale) they were significantly lower for the study group. A score of 18 used as the limit in this study allowed for the inclusion of 90% of the patients at risk for a PU, therefore making it possible to identify which factors can prevent the occurrence of new ulcers or exacerbation of pre-existing ulcers. Blanes et al5 found lower scores in all Braden Scale subscales.

Conclusion

       General preventive measures for PUs begin with the identification of risk factors.24 Most of these ulcers would not occur if health care professionals were more knowledgeable about the major characteristics of patients who develop PUs and PU risk evaluation scales, which would allow them to make an accurate prognosis and prevent possible PUs.
       Health care professionals will then be able to develop more effective and preventive treatment plans for PUs if they become more knowledgeable about PU risk factors.
       Data from the present study illustrate that older patients without significant cognitive impairment have increased risk factors for developing PUs. Major risk factors during the hospitalization period were humidity, activity, mobility, friction, and shear force.

 


References
1. Ferreira LM, Calil J. The pressure ulcer etiology and treatment. Diagn Treatment. 2001;6:36–40.
2. Perez ED. Pressure ulcers: updated guidelines for treatment and prevention. Geriatrics. 1993;48(1):39–44.
3. Ramos LR, Veras RP, Kalache A. Population aging: a Brazilian reality. Rev Saúde Publ. 1987;21(3):211–224.
4. Brazil. Health Ministry. Law 8842, 01/04/1994, which cares about national elderly politics and gives other determinations. Official Diary of Brazil Federal Republic, Executive Power, Brasília DF; January 5, 1996.
5. Blanes L, Duarte IS, Calil JA, Ferreira LM. Clinical and epidemiological evaluation of pressure ulcers in hospitalized patients in the São Paulo hospital. Rev Assoc Med Bras. 2004;50(2):182–187.
6. Bergstrom N, Braden BJ, Kemp M, Champagne M, Ruby E. Multi-site of incidence of pressure ulcers and the relationship between risk level, demographic characteristics, diagnoses and prescription of preventive interventions. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1996;44(1):22–30.
7. Paranhos WY, Santos VLCG. Pressure ulcers risk assessment by using the Braden on Portuguese language. Rev Esc Enf USP. 1999;33:191–206.
8. Takahashi PY, Kiemele LJ, Jones JP Jr. Wound care for elderly patients: advances and clinical applications for practicing physicians. Mayo Clin Proc. 2004;79(2):260–267.
9. Bertolucci PHF, Brucki SMD, Campacci SR, Juliano Y. The mini exam about the mental state on a general population. Arq Neuropsiquiatr.1994;52(1):1–7.
10. National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel. Pressure Ulcers: Incidence, Economic Risk Assessment, Consensus Development Conference Statement. National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel. Rockville, Md: 1989;5–6.
11. Allman RM. Pressure ulcers among the elderly. N Engl J Med. 1989;320(13):850–853.
12. Siegel S, Castellan NJ Jr. Nonparametrics statics. 2nd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill;1988.
13. Gutierrez F. Preveni lãs úlceras por presión es garantir la calidad asistencial. Enf Científica. 1993;140:7–10.
14. Langemo DK, Olsen B, Hanson D, Burd C, Cathcart-Silberberg T, Hunter S. Prevalence of pressure ulcers in five patient care settings. J Enterostomal Ther. 1990;17(5):187–192.
15. Shue RM, Langemo DK. Pressure ulcer prevalence and incidence and a modification of Braden scale for rehabilitation unit. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 1998;25(1):36–43.
16. Ek AC, Boman G. A descriptive study of pressure sores: the prevalence of pressure sores and the characteristics of patients. J Adv Nurs. 1982;7(1):51–57.
17. Gonçalves MTF. Pressure ulcers and the elderly. Nursing. 1996;9(106):13–17.
18. Lepistö M, Eriksson E, Hietanen H, Asko-Seljavaara S. Patients with pressure ulcers in Finnish hospitals. Int J Nurs Pract. 2001;7(4):280–287.
19. Mulder GD. Factors complicating wound repair. In: Kloth LC, McCulloch JM, Freedar JA, eds. Wound healing alternatives in management. Philadelphia, Pa: F.A. Davis Company; 1990:43–52.
20. O’Brien SP, Gahtan V, Wind S, Kerstein MD. What is the paradigm: hospital or home health care for pressure ulcers? Am Surg. 1999;65(4):303–306.
21. Mecocci P, von Strauss E, Cherubini A, et al. Cognitive impairment is the major risk factor for development of geriatric syndromes during hospitalization: results from the GIFA study. Dementia Geriatr Cognitive Disord. 2005;20(4):262–269.
22. Kemp MG, Keithley JK, Smith DW, Morreale B. Factors that contribute to pressure sores in surgical patients. Res Nurs Health. 1990;13(5):293–301.
23. Frisoli JR A, Haddad A, Neto JT, Ferreira LM. Ulcer due to pressure. Gerontologia. 1995;3(4):193–200.
24. Fabre F, Andouche L, Carpentier F, et al. Conférence de consensus, Paris, France, 2002. Prévention et traitement des escarres de l’adulte et du sujet âge. Ann Dermatol Venereol. 2002;129:757–765.

Wounds - ISSN: 1044-7946 - Volume 19 - Issue 01 - January 2007 - Pages: 20 - 24



Supplements:

Special Publication:
The following is a collection of publications from Healthpoint intended to facilitate expeditious, cost-effective wound care management. There will be nine publications total.

Related Links:
Symposium on Advanced Wound Care (SAWC)
The Buck Stops Here
Association of Advanced Wound Care
Ostomy/Wound Management
Podiatry Today
Vascular Disease Management
Wound Healing Society

Article Submission:
All submissions for consideration should be submitted online using the Rapid Review Web-Based Review System at www.rapidreview.com. Authors should scroll down to HMP Communications and click on Author.


© 2008 HMP Communications | All Rights Reserved
83 General Warren Blvd | Suite 100 | Malvern, PA 19355